Abortion Assasination Politics likely going to Supremes

A. Melon juicy at melontraffickers.com
Tue Dec 10 11:45:29 PST 2019

> So when is APster coming out, which lets
> you trade lists of deserving people?
> Tuesday September 12 5:11 AM ET
>      Abortion Web Site Verdict Appealed
>      By WILLIAM McCALL, Associated Press Writer
>      PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Anti-abortion activists are
>      asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $109 million
>      verdict by a jury that decided a Web site and posters listing
>      the names of abortion doctors and clinics were threats that
>      went beyond free speech.
>      The case is widely seen as a test of a Supreme Court ruling that
defined a threat as
>      explicit language likely to cause imminent lawless action - and a
measure of how
>      far anti-abortion activists can go in harrying doctors and clinics.
>      Oral arguments in the appeal are scheduled Tuesday before a panel of
the 9th U.S.
>      Circuit Court of Appeals.
>      At issue is a Web site called The Nuremberg Files that listed
hundreds of abortion
>      doctors accused of committing crimes against humanity and invited
readers to
>      send in doctors addresses, license plate numbers and even the names
of their
>      children.
>      Last year, the dozen anti-abortion activists argued the posters and
Web site were
>      free speech protected under the First Amendment. Critics called it a
hit list.
>      The jury was told by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones to consider the
history of
>      violence in the anti-abortion movement, including three doctors
killed after their
>      names appeared on the lists.
>      One was Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was gunned down by a sniper in
October 1998 at
>      his home near Buffalo, N.Y. Slepians name was crossed out on The
>      Files Web site later that day.
>      In 1995, Planned Parenthood and four doctors sued the anti-abortion
activists under
>      federal racketeering statutes and the 1994 Freedom of Access to
Clinic Entrances
>      Act, which makes it illegal to incite violence against abortion
doctors and their
>      patients.
>      Jones told the jury the Wanted-style posters and Web site were not
free speech if
>      a reasonable person could perceive them as threats.
>      But a number of legal experts have criticized the February 1999 jury
verdict and
>      those instructions, saying a threat must be explicit.
>      If youre looking for a case likely to go to the Supreme Court, this
is one, said Lee
>      Tornquist, a law professor who specializes in the First Amendment at
>      University in Salem, Ore.
>      Others consider the jury decision sound.
>      Margie Kelly, spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Law and
Policy in
>      New York, said Jones correctly told the jury to weigh any threat in
>      This is a case that is built on history, Kelly said. You have had
years of arson,
>      shootings, death threats. How can that context be considered anything
but a threat?
>      The Georgia computer programmer who ran the Nuremberg Files was not a
>      defendant in the lawsuit. After the verdict, his Internet provider
pulled the plug on
>      the site.
>      Among the anti-abortion activists appealing the ruling is Michael
Bray of Bowie,
>      Md., author of a book that justifies killing doctors to stop
abortions. Bray served
>      time in federal prison from 1985 to 1989 for his role in arson
attacks and bombings
>      of seven clinics.

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list